ORAL JUDGMENT

Bilal Nazki, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who has been detained in terms of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as " the") by Order dated 1st April, 2008, which was executed on 12th June, 2008.

2.The Grounds of Detention were served on the petitioner. The grounds start with the introduction that the detenu was a violent type of a dangerous criminal, having taken to the life of a criminal for the sake of easy money. It was also contended that he had formed a gang of like-minded criminals, and had unleashed a reign of terror, and as such, he has become a perpetual danger to the lives and properties of the people residing and carrying out their daily vocations in the areas. There is a reference in the grounds to chapter proceedings of 2001, in which the detenu was made to give a bond of Rs.10,000/- for keeping peace and good behaviour; and in 2004, there was some warning given.

3.On another occasion, the detenu had been sent to judicial custody for 7 days. Then, in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, he was informed that in the immediate past, he had committed an offence, and on the basis of complaint, an F.I.R. was filed under Sections 384, 385, 387, 323, 506(2) and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, being C.R. No.303 of 2007. This complaint was registered on 7th November, 2007.

4.Thereafter, it is stated that on 7th December, 2007, the detenu was arrested and produced before the Magistrate. On the same day, the Court ordered the detenu to be released, subject to furnishing of surety, and the bail was availed. He was put a condition that he will have to appear twice a week before the Investigating Officer. On 24th December, 2007, on the detenus behalf, his advocate submitted an application for cancellation of attendance of twice a week. That application is pending for orders. In the meantime, the charge-sheet was filed in the case on 22nd February, 2008.

5.Besides this case, there are two statements of witnesses recoded in camera - one on 23rd February, 2008, and the other on 25th February, 2008. Both of these statements have been verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 28th February, 2008.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the Order of Detention on the ground that there had been delay in initiating proposal for detention of the detenu and that the statements of witnesses recorded in camera were recorded only after the detenu had been bailed out and, in order to pass an Order of Detention, the statements had been recorded. This is disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7.In paragraph 6(v) of the petition, the petitioner has stated as under:-

"That the Petitioner calls upon the Respondent No.1 to state the date of the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority and the list of documents accompanied with the said proposal. The petitioner also calls upon the Respondent No.1 to state the date when the proposal was accepted and the order of detention passed by him and also the date when the grounds of detention were formulated."

8.In reply to it, in counter-affidavit in paragraph 12, it is stated as follows:-

"With reference to Para 6(v) of the Petition, I state that the Petitioner by filing the present petition cannot call upon to produce the details about the documents supplied along with the proposal."

9.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the case was registered on 10th November, 2007, and according to the Detaining Authority, the petitioner had created terror in the area much before 10th November, 2007, nothing was done till 1st March, 2008 when the proposal was initiated for the detention of the detenu. She submits that the Sponsoring Authority could have initiated a proposal much before 10th November, 2007, and if not on 10th November, then at least immediately after 10th November, 2007, if, really, the detenu was a danger to the maintenance of public order. But once bail was allowed on 7th December, 2007, it was thought that the detenu has become a danger to public order, but even after 7th December, 2007, it took almost another two months for the Sponsoring Authority to initiate the proposal. She further submits that the statements recorded by the Sponsoring Authority from unknown witnesses were only recorded after even the charge-sheet and the cases against the detenu had been filed and he had been bailed out.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Pradeep Nilknath Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 61. This case needs to be referred somewhat in detail, because the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied on some judgment of this High Court which has taken note of this judgment. In this case, the detenu had challenged the Order of Detention in this High Court, and the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, the detenu went to the Supreme Court. The Detaining Authority had passed Order of Detention on the basis of five cases registered against the detenu for manufacturing and selling illicit liquor and also on the basis of the statements given by witnesses A to E. The cases registered against the detenu related to period 2nd October, 1990 to 26th February, 1991. Witnesses A and B were examined on 26th March, 1991 and other witnesses were examined on 20th and 27th March, 1991. The detenu had been released on bail in all the cases which were registered against him when the statements of witnesses A to E were recorded. The Sponsoring Authority, after collecting material, submitted his proposal on 4th April, 1992, which was accepted on 25th July, 1991 and thereafter the Order of Detention was passed on 6th August, 1991. The Honble Supreme Court noted that all the five criminal cases were of 1990. Remaining two were dated 5th January, 1991 and 26th February, 1991. Witnesses A to E were examined in the later part of March, 1991, and the Supreme Court felt that this was the time much after the detenu had been released on bail in all the five criminal cases. The High Court, while considering whether delay had been caused in passing the Detention Order, and whether such delay would vitiate the Detention Order, had observed as follows:-

"The period of four months required by the authorities to pass the order can by no stretch of imagination be tested as unduly long. Though the statements were available in March 1991, the procedure required some time before the powers are exercised. In our judgment, the order of detention does not suffer from the vice of delay."

11.But this was not accepted by the Honble Supreme Court, and Supreme Court, while relying on an earlier judgment in T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, reported in 1989 (4) SCC 741 [LQ/SC/1989/418] , quoted the following passage with approval:-

"The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each. No hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive guide lines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. However, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case."

12.Then, ultimately, the Honble Supreme Court, in paragraph 13, laid down as follows:-

"Coming to the case on hand, the detention order was passed after 5 months and 8 days from the date of the registration of the last case and more than 4 months from submission of the proposal. What disturbs our mind is that the statements from the witnesses A to E were obtained only after the detenu became successful in getting bail in all the prohibition cases registered against him, that too in the later part of Mach 1991. These statements are very much referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority along with the registration of the cases under the."

13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to several judgments, one of them being Smt. Zebunnisa Abdul Majid v. M.N. Singh & Ors., reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 2759. While discussing the judgment which has been discussed hereinabove, this Court referred to the observation of the Supreme Court. This Court has explained the principle laid down in this judgment, but at the same time we cannot be oblivious of the fact that this process of recording the statements of witnesses started immediately after the bail was granted to the detenu.

14.Besides, we have seen the statements recorded by the police in terms of the law laid down earlier. It is necessary that facts mentioned in such statements should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. One of the statements we have taken as a sample. This statement, inter alia, mentions:-

"Many offences of cheating, extortion have been registered against him in several police stations. He has been arrested many times by the police, but there has been no change whatsoever in his conduct. Due to his terror, nobody usually goes to the police station to complain against him. I am also one of the victims."

15.If the Assistant Commissioner, who verified the statement, had even gone through the statement, he would have found that these allegations were not true and were false. The statement shows that many offences of cheating and extortion were registered against the detenu, but even according to the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority, there was only one case registered against the detenu. Therefore, we feel that these statements were only obtained in order to pass an Order of Detention.

16.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also relied on paragraph 13 of the judgment in Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar (supra). This judgment is pressed into service only to show that there was no delay in initiating proposal, as the proposal had been initiated immediately after the in camera statements were recorded. But once we doubt that the in camera statements were recorded as a mala fide exercise of power only to see that the Order of Detention is passed, this judgment cannot come to the aid of the respondents.

17.For these reasons, we allow the petition, quash the Order of Detention dated 1st April, 2008, and release the petitioner, Nilesh Prabhakar Chodankar, forthwith, if not needed in any other case. The Rule is made absolute.